How the new council is looking (and Lutfur’s first press conference)

I’m going to let the dust settle a bit before giving a fuller post on yesterday’s events. That’ll be tomorrow evening or Monday morning after we get a fuller picture on the council elections.

Many congratulations to Lutfur Rahman; throughout the count, he was a man barely able to speak due to the stress. He was chewing gum and had a glazed look about him whenever I bumped into him. But maybe that’s just the effect I have on him.

So no wonder the emotion came out during his early morning press conference at The Troxy. The audio is here. It’s well worth a listen. At about seven minutes in he mentions his car and justifies its need, but my hunch is he’ll give up the Merc and get a Prius or something else more Ken-friendly. George Galloway swears by the Toyota Prius as well.

A few seconds later, his voice breaks and he’s in tears as he talks about the personal attacks on him these past years. Ironically, a couple of minutes later he declines to say John Biggs is not a racist. This doesn’t augur well.

However, Lutfur is very pleased by how the council is shaping up. Forty-two seats were up for grabs last night (the three from Blackwall and Cubitt Town will be elected about early July).

Counting has been completed for 27 seats: Tower Hamlets First have 15, Labour 9, and the Tories 3.

Here:

The count was halted at 11am when it had become something if shambles, according to those there. Staff at The Troxy stopped serving any snacks, water or coffee after about 10pm, by which time the police had locked down the venue due to possible crowd trouble outside. I’m told two counting staff fainted, and one was in tears. It was clear that mistakes were being made.

So six wards are left to count tomorrow: Weavers, Bethnal Green, St Peter’s, Bromley South, Island Garden and Bow East.

I’d be amazed if Labour don’t take all three in Bow. But there could be some hiccups elsewhere. I understand Abjol Miah, the former Respect leader and now THF (which is Respect, let’s be frank) is trailing in St Peter’s, but at least one of his colleagues is likely to be elected.

There will also, no doubt, be some mixed results in Weavers and Bethnal Green, while Island Gardens is likely to be Peter Golds and Gloria Thienel for the Tories.

One scenario could be THF finishing on 19 seats, Labour 18 and Tories 5 from last night. When Blackwall is included, the controlling majority will be 23. So we could see a pact between the Tories and Labour to determine committee chairs etc, or we could see three defections from Labour to THF.

Longer term, Lutfur and many in his group want to return to Labour. There will now be pressure on Labour to move in that direction.

Don’t forget that Jim Fitzpatrick and Rushanara Ali have general elections to fight next year…

Also, who will now lead the Labour group? After early scares in Mile End East, David Edgar and Rachael Saunders survived, but Motin uz-Zaman fell.

And thankfully, Shiria Khatun survived the false allegation of electoral fraud in Lansbury.

We’re yet to see if current group leader, the extremely likeable and dignified Sirajul Islam, is elected in Bethnal Green.

Josh Peck was comfortably reelected in Bow West, where Labour defector Anwar Khan was easily beaten by his sister-in-law Asma Begum. But I can’t see Josh hanging around for four years as an opposition councillor. Perhaps City Hall or Westminster beckon.

Of all those other bigger guns, I suspect David Edgar is the likeliest to be open to a deal with Lutfur.

Here is the text of the post I made to the “East End Political Forum” page on Facebook this evening. It’s an account of my experience as a candidate and counting agent overnight from Friday PM to Saturday morning. It also explains the incomplete Ward counts.

“As someone who was in the Troxy from 3pm on Friday to 11am this morning – I’ve only just surfaced. Randal Smith’s account is pretty accurate. However he neglected to mention the interminable delays in starting the Mayoral Count. Tower Hamlets counts are notoriously badly run and disorganized, but this beat all records. The result finally emerged in the early hours following a second round of counting which excluded all candidates but Biggs and Rahman who had to fight over other candidates 2nd preferences. There were also over 2000 spoilt ballot papers which had to be adjudicated on, before the 2nd round could proceed. We were also at one stage instructed not to leave the building because of the huge crowd that had gathered outside and “the fears of civil unrest”. At times the A13, Commercial Road was blocked. The mob was there to hear the announcement of Great Leader Rahman’s re-election. It was clearly made up of people who were too dim to get out of the rain. This illustrates another problem, in many ways the Troxy was an ideal venue, lots of comfy seating upstairs for candidates and there counting agents to relax and a huge ground floor space for the counting operation to spread out and be conducted. Even the Troxys catering up to the late evening was superior. But, surrounded by the estates of Stepney and Shadwell it is vulnerable to being ” besieged. With the Mayors election over we went straight into the ward counts. But with further inexplicable delays, staff being briefed of their roles AT THE COUNTING TABLES and the huge number of split votes (blame UKIP and TUSC for standing single candidates and the byzantine Bengali politics of Mosque, Village and family) the process was horribly slow. With Counting staff flagging the system cracked after a recount ended with a nonsensical result. Many counts had not started at this time and have had to be transferred to the Euro count at Mile End on Sunday.

I think you may not have a lot of history with LBTH. It’s a matter of fact that Counts used to be run very efficiently and extremely well in this borough.

Of course that was one of the advantages of having a CEO who had been around for very many years and who was also the Returning Officer. Nobody, but nobody, would have dared mess up the Count when Jack Wolkind was in charge. He was the Chief Executive between 1964 and 1985.

His legacy lived on in the standards he set – until LBTH got the crazy stage where CEOs were being changed every five minutes – at huge expense to the council tax payer in terms of the payoffs they got. I suspect that might well have been when things began to fall apart.

If the payoffs to Chief Officers were to be charged up to the budget which paid allowances to Councillors – with no overspends allowed – I suspect we’d see a great more discipline and efficiency in the way this borough was run. People need to be good at their jobs and Councillors need to get on with the people paid to deliver the results. Otherwise it becomes a total shambles…..

Even if there was some bad behaviour at the polling stations Lutfur Rahman was the clear winner and that’s democracy. However allowing him to rejoin the Labour Party after campaigning against it is just not on.

2. My sister, my brother I ask for your help. I have a person who has to return urgently to help his/her dying mother/father/son/daughter etc. They are very nice and kind people. But when the person returns tothe UK, they will have a problem getting a new driving licence, a job etc. unless they have a UK address for their post.

3. Can you my kind brother/sister let the person use your address for his/her post ? I would use my own home address, but this person comes from your area, so it is important he/she shows he/she still has links with the area. Because the council checks these things would you mind putting the person on your voters list?

4. If any post should arrive for them, please give it to me and I will send it on to the person in India/Pakistani etc. etc.

5. Inevitably when the annual voting canvass form arrives the ghost person is added to keep the records in order.

6. When the postal vote or the polling card arrives it is handed to the contact person resulting in a stranger presenting a polling card at the voting place or a postal vote submitted without a stamp from India, Pakistan, Indonesia etc. etc.

7. The police are too lazy, too indifferent, too stupid or just over worked and lacking resources to do a large scale investigation into the vote rigging, so it continues year after year and year in an allegedly democratic country.

8. Added to the annual vote rigging is the scandal of illiterate people (meaning they can not read or write in any language) who sign legally binding contracts with their thumb print, applying for – and getting – postal votes. As the knowledgeable know, postal vote applications have to be signed and Glory Be A Miracle Occurs – the application is signed with a signature. The rest needs no further description.

If Lutfur had during his previous term as mayor shown any respect for democracy, then I might be able to show him the respect his office should normally be shown. But by not being open, accountable and his misuse of East End life (which he has turned into a propaganda newsheet) and other media I just can’t bring myself to respect him.

Sorry dude you only get rated as Asian in the british press,no such thing as Bengali,chinese,japanese,or any other group you are lumped in with the Asian perverts section.Unless you shout ,complain and get your voices heard for crying out loud you are all tarred with the same brush.

You seem to be a racist. An MP is supposed to have no race, no religion and no favouritism. The MP’s job is to represent ALL people regardless whether they voted or not and regardless of race, religion, sexual preference etc. etc.

If someone who came from former East Pakistan, a hotbed of poverty and corruption, gets elected, then why should where they come from really matter as an MP ? Their work and responsibility is to the local community.

Curious Cat, why would you use the expression ‘former East Pakistan’? What’s wrong with you? We do not say ‘Former Soviet Union’ when we refer to Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc. We use the names of these countries.

Bangladesh became an independent country on 16 December 1971. You used get used to it especially because 42 years have passed since.

Vocal and Brunz you just don’t get it do you: it isn’t the colour of Lutfur’s skin we object to, it is the horrid way he runs the council. Unaccountable, secretive, divisive. Another four years of the same and the borough will be more divided than ever.

I hope Labour have a rethink about working with Lutfur, they both need each other and residents of TH desperately need a strong functioning Council.

Having Lutfur back in, Labour will become relevant in TH again and the politics less poisonous. Lutfur will have open to him some decent cabinet members instead of inexperienced newcomers or bullying thugs.

Listen to the voice of the people of TH Labour. They have returned 2 Labour MPs but rejected your choice of Mayor twice.

Lutfur should never have been booted out, admit you got it wrong and get him back in.

To all the Labour leaders, many of you lost your seat or survived by the skin of your teeth. Wake up, you might not be so lucky next time. People of TH have given you a clear message. Get rid off those who oppose Lutfur, and get him back in!

He’d have to be cleared of the allegations and Pickles investigation, and publicly apologise to John Biggs for not confirming JB was not racist at his victory speech before being considered for re-admittance to Labour.

AYM, John Biggs should publicly apologise for being a racist. Michael Keith called him a racist in the 90’s when racism was actually rife in this borough. Around the same time, a BNP councillor was elected in TH.

Ex councillor Jalal Uddin Rajon also branded John Biggs a racist in a 10-point challenge that Rajon threw to Biggs during the election.

Michael Keith didn’t call him a racist. Please re-read that letter. Then read what he said about a couple of weeks ago. As for Jalal, there was much personal poison between him and Biggs. He’s never got over it.

Labour Councillor candidates were not disciplined and very few ran their campaign focusing on getting votes for John. Most were concerned about THEMSELVES wanted to get THEMSELVES elected/re-elected.

To that end they were not just ‘sensitive’ when tackling the Lutfur question, rather they didn’t even mention John or Lutfur and just talked about themselves! This focus on their own elect-ability kept the focus of the whole campaign in the wrong place.

I know Conservative candidates who did more to canvass for John BIggs than many of ‘our wonderful 45 Labour candidates’ did!!

Too many Labour activists have feet in both camps, obviously they cannot help who their family members are but they should have an honest look into their hearts and ask themselves “Did they campaign whole heartedly for the Labour Ticket of Mayor and all the councillor team?”

Too many deals and that kind of bullsh*t took place.

Basically Zero Discipline during campaign = failed campaign.

The party was in a bubble of unreality, especially in the belief that all these ‘double agents’ were causing no harm. Shame on them!

I think the main question which needs to be addressed is to what extent was this type of behaviour entirely predictable.

If it was, why was it not addressed – and addressed effectively?

The thing is political parties only work properly if they are absolutely solid at the grass roots – and that is very obviously not the case in Tower Hamlets.

Apart from the Count fiasco, I’m very inclined to think that Ted got “the whole story of the votes cast in this election in a nutshell” in that video he did with the Labour Campaigner who voted for Rahman.

Lutfur was the primary cause of suspicious voting activity in Tower Hamlets including a large number of fake signatures to vote for Tower Hamlets to have a Mayor int he first place. He’s used smear tactics to get elected ever since knowing that he would never get elected fairly otherwise.

The whole experience of counting was very disappointing. Some staff started work at 6am Friday and the process did not finish until after 11am Saturday and people were clearly losing concentration (myself included at times). The counting staff did a good job and some were excellent but training was clearly missing. Some staff had very good process for counting but their methods should have been shown to others to copy. However even if you improve the training you are still moving and counting tens of thousands of pieces of paper many of which have results which have to be counted up manually i.e. 2nd choices on mayoral results and split ticket voting on council seats with more then one choice. We have to find a more efficient voting and counting method in TH. We also have a problem with running different elections on the same day with three different voting methods as it was very clear some voters did not understand the differences i.e. Europe, you vote once for 1 party, Mayor, you vote twice in two separate columns and in councillor elections you can vote up to three times (in some wards) for different parties/people. In my council election we had a large number of ballot papers with single ticks even though people could select 2 candidates, it is possible that voters could only face selecting one person but I think most of those people had voted once in Europe, once in Mayor and did not realise they could vote twice in my ward. We need to look at electronic voting machines in TH in the future, which can help voters understand what they are doing in an impartial way and transform the counting process. After the 2010 elections and 2014 elections in TH I am not looking forward to another TH counting process although the next one in May 2015 should be relatively simple.
Andrew Wood, new councillor for Canary Wharf, who will always use his real name when posting to this blog 🙂

Andrew Wood, cogratulations. People of Canary Wharf chose you and Maium Miah to represent them. Hopefully, you will rise above your political differences and work together in the best interests of residents in your ward.

CC yes, the words were something like that but on the 2nd line of the instructions was how many votes you had but with three different ballot papers for people to read with different instructions I think some people did not get that far. In my ward I saw lots of single votes for parties who were offering two candidates i.e. if people only voted UKIP you could understand a single vote but not for Labour, THF and Conservative.

My impression is that the new rigorous system introduced focused on a few aspects which needed to be tightened up and completely ignored others. While I’m hearing very few rumours problems with postal votes or stuffed ballot boxes – which is really good – the staffing side of the systems for both the ballot and the count appears to have been managed much less well.

The Presiding Officers and Clerks clearly needed better training in both process and being assertive. At some polling stations they were allowing things to happen which should not. That’s clearly a responsibility of the Returning Officer.

In retrospect I wonder why they did not have a very simple laminated reminder in every booth of how many crosses were required on each colour of paper – particularly given the fact there were three different elections and the boundaries had changed and the number of Councillors being elected had reduced. Even people who can read are apt to do what they’ve always done unless clearly told to do something different – like vote for only two candidates rather than three.

I note there were rather a lot of spoiled votes in the Mayoral election produced by people voting for more than they were allowed. Why not get the Returning Officer to get those analysed by the polling station they originated from.

Why not also find out how many elections the Returning Officer had run prior to this one. What I found surprising were the estimates of how long things would take – which seemed amateurish. Clearly if they had changed how to verify votes then that stage would take longer – but 10 hours is completely ridiculous and suggests that there had been no testing of new processes prior to their introduction?

The fact that they carried on counting after the Mayoral Election was also to my mind the decision of somebody whose judgement was flawed.

The Counting Staff had already gone 8 hours beyond the estimate for when the count would finish. Unless they had made proper arrangements for reserve counters and/or for rest and food and drink etc then what they were doing was abusing counting staff! There was absolutely no chance of them finishing and it would have been better to do the whole count after people had had sleep. However I suspect they had too few staff saying they would come back on the Saturday and were making decisions using poor judgement influenced by tiredness by that stage.

(PS To have a Councillor having to resort to Twitter to get water sent in to the Count is appalling!!)

For the record I’m an ex-local government officer who manned both Polling Stations and Counts in Tower Hamlets some years back – when the count was run by people who had been doing it for years and were extremely experienced. It was a very smooth well-oiled operation which engendered confidence in the candidates. There were never any complaints from Councillors. Staff were also well looked after – and you need to remember that many of the officers at the Count had also been manning Polling Stations all day.

I can’t ever remember those elections ever being described as “a shambles” – but I read that term describing the Polling Stations and the Count on Friday/Saturday in very many accounts of the people who have watched elections and counts in many different places.

Put simply it’s not good enough.

It needn’t have been like this – and what happened needs to be properly reviewed and a report produced for the benefit of both Councillors, staff and the electorate who made complaints.

The count going on into Saturday morning was at the insistence of one party, I will let you guess which one. We were offered by the returning officer the opportunity to rest and return later on Saturday but not all parties agreed. The fact that ward results are still not finished is a testimony as to how bad things got. There were other problems but I cannot comment until counting is finished later today.
At some point late in the night I was able to sneak out and get a pack of Rich Tea biscuits, which was gratefully received by even Labour candidates 🙂 Later pizza was delivered but even that was chaotic with some people taking single slices thinking the supply was limited and some people walking away with full boxes.
The polling stations were not too bad but as a qualified accountant and long term financial controller I can say that the counting environment & process was sub-optimal given the number of ballot papers and complexity of different voting methods.

The inexperience of the parties involved and those running the Count is showing up if this is what happened.

The Returning Officer needs to be capable of making an accurate judgement about when a Count will finish. The Returning Officer must also be more assertive if the Counting Teams are too tired to be able to complete the Count. If it can’t be finished on the night he must tell the parties that arrangements will be put in place to do the whole count the following day. It goes much faster if everybody is fresh.

All candidates need to accept that just because you want to know your result NOW doesn’t mean to say that’s what’s going to happen.

It’s essential that Parties and ALL their candidates bring to the Count some respect and understanding of what it is like for the people who are involved in doing the actual Count. Otherwise they run a grave risk of appearing to be ignorant and arrogant idiots.

You pick things out of thin air and then try to make them fit your agenda

The temporary staff reflect one of two things
* either the high cost of living in London (ie it’s impossible to recruit to some jobs/posts/grades) when people see what it does to the quality of their life compared to living in (say) the Home Counties where rents and house prices are more affordable
* or particular difficulties associated with specific authorities where they have “an image problem”. People won’t apply for jobs at Councils which aren’t going to look good on their CVs. They want to work for the ones which get on with the job without endless bickering and high profile negative images

No Council would employ temporary staff unless they have to – but in relation to some functions that’s just exactly what they do have to do – or risk failing to deliver services of critical importance (e.g. social services for children) and receive even more negative publicity. For example note the recent articles about Birmingham City Council and the fact that it closed the cases of 145 children without even assessing them due to a lack of social workers. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-27522127. Note also they have been assessed as inadequate since 2008 and that can’t have made it easy for them to recruit staff.

How is an area having a large immigrant population the responsibility of the local authority or how another entirely different Council runs its polling stations? Have you lost the plot?

Elected Councillors can have as much say in Council affairs as they wish to. I haven’t noticed Peter Gold behaving like a shrinking violet over the last four years. Of course if some people want to believe they have no say or influence that’s actually the business of the electorate – and we should remove them from office – but for the little matter related to the fact that we never ever get a report on the performance of Councillors prior to elections.

Your digressions on to topics which interest you are becoming increasingly implausible.

The temporary staff reflect one of two things
* either the high cost of living in London (ie it’s impossible to recruit to some jobs/posts/grades) when people see what it does to the quality of their life compared to living in (say) the Home Counties where rents and house prices are more affordable
* or particular difficulties associated with specific authorities where they have “an image problem”. People won’t apply for jobs at Councils which aren’t going to look good on their CVs. They want to work for the ones which get on with the job without endless bickering and high profile negative images

Temporary staff also reflect in everyday undenial reality:

(1) staff think the local authority so crap they don’t want to work here, so a temp fills the vacancy

(2) senior staff are creating jobs for their friends and acquantaines (similar to nepotism)

(3) highly paid staff are so indept they can’t do the job so a temp in brought-in to do the bits the crap top staff can’t do

(4) non-stop internal reorganisations

(5) preparation for more privatisation of council jobs and services

Aren’t you supposed to have some inside LG knowledge ?

No Council would employ temporary staff unless they have to

Rubbish. Its a waste of time and effort responding to your deluded vision of local government live.

– but in relation to some functions that’s just exactly what they do have to do – or risk failing to deliver services of critical importance (e.g. social services for children) and receive even more negative publicity. For example note the recent articles about Birmingham City Council and the fact that it closed the cases of 145 children without even assessing them due to a lack of social workers.

Brum is the tip of a long series of icebergs. How come you didn’t mention any of them ?
Kids are regularly failed by local authorities – its a fact of life. Go and chat with OFSTED and spend several weeks reading carefully through their vast collection of local authority failure reports.

Hey. Please feel free to carry-on with your incomplete knowledge of real local government in England. Perhaps SOLACE gave you a gold medal with the contract.

The temporary staff reflect one of two things
* either the high cost of living in London (ie it’s impossible to recruit to some jobs/posts/grades) when people see what it does to the quality of their life compared to living in (say) the Home Counties where rents and house prices are more affordable
* or particular difficulties associated with specific authorities where they have “an image problem”. People won’t apply for jobs at Councils which aren’t going to look good on their CVs. They want to work for the ones which get on with the job without endless bickering and high profile negative images

Temporary staff also reflect in everyday undeniable reality:

(1) staff think the local authority so crap they don’t want to work there, so a temp fills the vacancy

(2) senior staff are creating jobs for their friends and acquaintances (similar to nepotism)

(3) highly paid staff are so inept they can’t do the job so a temp in brought-in to do the bits the crap top staff can’t do

(4) non-stop internal reorganisations

(5) preparation for more privatisation of council jobs and services

Aren’t you supposed to have some inside LG knowledge ?

No Council would employ temporary staff unless they have to

Rubbish. Its a waste of time and effort responding to your deluded vision of local government life.

– but in relation to some functions that’s just exactly what they do have to do – or risk failing to deliver services of critical importance (e.g. social services for children) and receive even more negative publicity. For example note the recent articles about Birmingham City Council and the fact that it closed the cases of 145 children without even assessing them due to a lack of social workers.

Brum is the tip of a long series of icebergs. How come you didn’t mention any of them ?
Kids are regularly failed by local authorities – its a fact of life. Go and chat with OFSTED and spend several weeks reading carefully through their vast collection of local authority failure reports.

Please feel free to carry-on with your incomplete knowledge of real local government in England. Perhaps SOLACE gave you a gold medal with the contract.

Excellent article by Dan, agree with everything he said. Lutfur should never have been expelled from Labour. Labour vilified an entire community based on one dubious TV program by a journalist who clearly has a problem with Islam and Muslims.

@AYM, lets not start being sanctimonious about this. There’s plenty of other examples on both sides, we need to look to the future. People of TH want a Labour mayor and they want that mayor to be Lutfur Rahman.

Lutfur should be very wary of Desperate Dan. Dan’s piece ‘Writing on the wall for Lutfur’ during the election campaign degraded and disparaged Lutfur bordering on defamation. He was writing about Lutfur with allegedly a penis on Lutfur’s head on some poster. Very disrespectful. At the time, he thought he could curry favour with Labour because he thought wrongly that Biggsy would win. Now that Lutfur’s won, Desperate Dan has changed his stance.

As the great example of Mandela showed, truth and reconciliation can mend communities. Please don’t call me sanctimonious. I have been involved in many bigoted, sectarian, divisive elections. It takes big people like JMcK and JM to bridge the gap across and between diverse communities. If in doubt, ask Lord McFall.

In my opinion, the only way Lutfur Rahman will ever find his way back into mainstream Labour Party politics – and maybe even becomes eligible for a knighthood (anybody notice what the three other Labour London Mayors have got and Lutfur hasn’t?) is if he changes his ways.

People learn from their experiences over time – and I think maybe Lutfur has recognised that now might be a good time to do things a bit differently this time around.

Particularly if he has aspirations for doing things in politics which go beyond being Mayor in Tower Hamlets. Let’s face it if he turns over a new leaf and learns from what has gone before then there’s nothing to stop him going on to become an MP or even a Lord! However to do that he needs to change a few things.

Here’s my take on what I think Lutfur needs to do. Feel free to add in your own recommendations – but please be constructive.

1) Lutfur MUST work at being a Mayor rather than trying to be a constituency councillor. No Mayor ought to be dealing with 12,000 cases (listen to the podcast) – that’s what the Councillors are for. No Mayor needs a car to rush around the borough dealing with the woes of individuals. IMO Lutfur has his priorities completely the wrong way round.
* Put an emphasis on training Councillors on how to do a really good job at tackling the problems of constituents. That’s a very important part of their job and one that all should do well – irrespective of party. That brings benefits to everybody.
* Take time out to look at how other Mayors do their job.
* Find ways to free up time to become a Mayor who makes much more time available for much bigger and more important issues.

2) Run a squeaky clean administration which does everything by the book for a minimum of 3 years. That means no favours for friends and financial supporters; no personal patronage etc – and no knighthood unless this next administration remains untainted and free of questionable behaviour and/or decision-making.

3) Stop the cult of the personality and start giving credit for people who actually get the job done. Make an impression by making things happen – not because you try to get your photo in the paper all the time. Stop listening to very poor PR advice and don’t allow people to massage your ego or divert you from the tasks only you can do! Name another politician IN THE UK who has their photo on every hoarding – and then think about what does that tell you?

4) Be knowledgeable, be accountable and become more confident about talking in public. I’m sure it’s only shyness and lack of confidence which creates a problem. It’s exactly the same problem which has shared by other leading politicians who have to do PM or Ministerial Questions or been the Opposition in Parliament. But the fact of the matter is you can get help and leading politicians have to be accountable in public. Important Fact: No Leader at any level has all the answers all the time! However a Leader who never answers any questions via the scrutiny process is a pretty poor Leader.

5) Create a much better impression of Tower Hamlets Council – amongst residents AND those who who have never visited LBTH Create national headlines for Tower Hamlets which make people proud to live here rather than being embarrassed to admit where they live. Make Tower Hamlets the sort of employer that local government officers are proud to have on their CV. (see 2 above for part of ‘how’)

6) Tower Hamlets will only become a truly successful Council when race is no longer an issue for anyone. Stop talking about diversity and working together and start doing something about it in relation to the administration of this Borough. Remember that two-thirds of the borough do not have a Bangladeshi heritage and half the borough is female. A political party and a cabinet and an administration which is dominated by one minority cultural group and one gender is neither wise nor healthy in the long term and Tower Hamlets cannot be really successful if this carries on. A successful Council needs to be representative of all the people and both genders.

7) Get rid of the bling – it’s not clever and it makes you a very easy target for jokes and insults. If you must have a car make sure it is economical and dual fuel!

8) Learn how to work with Chief Executives and you’ll get a lot more done. Expect them to challenge you as well as support you – that’s what they are supposed to do. One aspect of their job is to keep you out of trouble. Take their advice when they remind you of the reasons why it’s a good idea to avoid making decisions which breach the rules you have to work within.

I’ve met a lot of leading politicians in my time. Some I knew when they were starting out before they went on to become fill important jobs in government. Some I met when they were at the top of their particular tree . Some are impressive and some are not.

The best ones have always been those who:

* knew when they had made mistakes, admitted them and constantly sought lessons on how to do it better.

* knew where their problems lay – and how to fix them (or knew a man or woman who can).

* worked hard at bringing people together to work towards a common goal – and that includes earning the respect of all those with different backgrounds and different political perspectives.

It’s a big challenge – but it’s not an impossible one – and, most importantly, if the Mayor faces and meets the challenge then everybody benefits.

Casework: partly, it’s a different way of doing mayoral politics. Maybe it’s more common in Chicago than London, but it’s grassroots community support and I don’t think you should bin that so easily. It’s pretty great to have a mayor that any resident can see at a few days notice, every week in surgery. And he never leaves before he’s seen everyone. Try it some time and you can put your concerns to him personally.

also, politically speaking other mayors have a party block vote to rely on. He doesn’t, so probably he calculated that in retaining that support it was necessary to do all that casework, to build his own base. I’d say the same for billboard with his face on – he couldn’t rely on a party brand so had to build his own. Yes, it’s council resources (and dustcarts maybe not too classy) but its not illegal.

On the race stuff – remember that he never wanted an all Bengali cabinet. He wanted Marc Francis and Rachael Saunders etc in it but the Labour party decided on a rule of non-cooperation a week after the 2010 election. Let’s see what happens this time.

And despite what Gilligan has said, if you talk to Kevan Collins I think you’ll find they had a good working relationship. It was only Martin Smith he fell out with.

I totally understand what you’re saying – and I don’t necessarily disagree with it so much as refining it

I understand the notion about the casework – but that was then and this is now. Now he needs to develop a different model of how to work efficiently and effectively.

e.g. So continue to have a weekly slot for casework – it’s a very sensible idea. However make sure it is timed slot, organise your people so you see a cross section and don’t waste time travelling around the borough eg do a slot in a different ward every week.

However most importantly do not usurp the Councillors from getting and doing their own casework! Hold his Councillors to account for the privilege of being a Councillor. Make it clear that it involves doing the work. Allow them to bring their intractable cases to the Mayor – but only after they have demonstrated they’ve done all they can. That raises standards of delivery all round!

Re. the advertising – He’s built the brand and alienated quite a few people by being “in your face” all the time. So you win some AND you lose some.

Same message as before – that was then and this is now – it’s time for a change. Don’t waste money on doing the “me, me, me” thing when resources are very tight – it just looks self-indulgent.

I totally understand the bit about the Cabinet and I think he did the right thing in making Cabinet seats available. However if he hadn’t alienated the Labour Party by the way his political campaigning treated his opponent then maybe he’d have achieved that. That was a political “own goal” on Rahman’s part. He distanced himself from the Labour Party.

Anyway, that was then and this is now.

Keeping Cabinet seats open might be one way forward – but that in part depends on how his supporters behave. There’s been quite a bit of sneering at Labour on this blog – and it’s really not helpful to Rahman getting back onside with Labour now is it?

1)No Mayor ought to be dealing with 12,000 cases (listen to the podcast) – that’s what the Councillors are for.

No Mayor needs a car to rush around the borough dealing with the woes of individuals. IMO Lutfur has his priorities completely the wrong way round.
* Put an emphasis on training Councillors on how to do a really good job at tackling the problems of constituents. That’s a very important part of their job and one that all should do well – irrespective of party. That brings benefits to everybody.

Wrong.

Agreed no mayor …..

But disagree on dumping the malfunctioning of the local authority on individual councillors. Casework arises from the failure of the local authority to provide a good and satisfactory public service. Why are we paying staff much more than the UK’s prime minister when they clearly can’t deliver a good service to the public ????

Councillors are NOT THERE to cover-up the incompetence of a local authority’s paid staff. Councillors are not window-dressing. They are there to make decisions on the functioning of the local authority (admittedly difficult after Tony Blair’s 2000 or 2002 Local Government Act improvement creating executive councillors and making the rest impotent).

There is no point paying local authority staff money, generous pensions and perks to do their work badly … then expecting councillors to clean-up the mess. That is not proper local government and never has been.

You have a very curious idea about the how job of a councillor (or an MP for that matter!) all over the UK – and has worked for years and years.

People do NOT arrive in front of a Councillor simply because a service is malfunctioning – as your rant appears to assume.

Not all local government employees are doing their job badly – as your rant appears to imply.

The job of any Councillor has ALWAYS involved representing their constituents.

HOWEVER those constituents don’t always have a very good idea of
* what a Council does (you’d be amazed at the number of people who think they are responsible for all public services)
* how a council works or
* who to go to.

That’s even in Councils where they do a very good job of telling people how they can get help.

Surgeries involve meeting with constituents and
* sometimes pointing them in the right direction (eg this is nothing to do with local government),
* sometimes telling them how to sort a matter out for themselves and
* sometimes taking up a case on their behalf when it’s obvious that the constituent had tried but the efforts they have made have not got a result.

All of that is casework but only a proportion of it relates to something that may have gone wrong.

Also bear in mind that just because something is wrong in the constituents eyes (e.g. they’ve been on the housing list for years and still haven’t had an offer) doesn’t mean to say that this is actually a mistake on the part of the Council (e.g. the constituent doesn’t have enough points to merit an offer). However the casework still has to be dealt with.

It’s also an incredibly important feedback loop for any Councillor about what parts of a Council’s services are working and which ones are clearly malfunctioning. It allows Councillors to help influence how a Council directs its efforts in improving those services which do need to improve how they are working

So next time – before you kick off on another rant, why not take the trouble to find out a bit more about what you are ranting about?

1. I do not have any wrong idea about what a local government councillor in England should be doing. Just because the system is open to abuse and overloaded caused by the malfunctioning of local authorities, the councillors get problems that direct arise from the failure of the staff to do the job properly.

People do NOT arrive in front of a Councillor simply because a service is malfunctioning – as your rant appears to assume.

Oh yes they do. No assumption just loads and loads of personal knowledge.

The job of any Councillor has ALWAYS involved representing their constituents.

In my own experience (more than 500 caseworks per year, every year) casework is caused by failure of the local authority to provide the required service to the public.

It is surprising how little local authority staff know about the local government system which pays them. That is because the staff are never educated in local government matters and grow-up thinking themselves superior to the endless flow of transient councillors.

Councils exist to serve the public not the staff. Too much corruption, frivolous spending and massive secret awards of public cash to often sub-standard staff are always covered-up. Local authorities in England have failed to become genuinely open and transparent whilst paying many of their top staff more dosh than the UK’s prime minister’s double salary of £142,000 p.a.

Lets clean-out the mess.

So next time – before you kick off on another rant, why not take the trouble to find out a bit more about what you are ranting about?

I do. I write with in-depth knowledge – far greater than your sanitised P.R. script. You can fool some but thankfully not all with your mistaken and misleading waffle. How long did you actually work in local government and was it at a principal area authority or for a parish council?

Curious Cat.

P.S. All local government staff paid more than £49,999.99 p.a. should be licensed and regulated and no one should be paid more than the UK prime minister.

I’ll leave Ted (who knows who I am) to accredit me – without revealing who I am!

BTW I don’t disagree with you about the using the PM’s salary as a ceiling for the pay of all those in local government – and have thought that for many years.

Just as I don’t agree with expenses being paid to Councillors or MPs just for turning up and signing on.

What other system allows people to be paid for a job which doesn’t require them to be
* formally accountable for their detailed expenses in exactly the same way that staff have to be; or
* report back to the public in terms of what they have done and achieved – in a manner which can be independently verified?
There’s rather too many people claiming credit for things they had very little to do with – and then asking us to take that on trust.

Possibly. Its the TH connection. The daunting work of banging on doors to interview 124 class G voters in an hour’s time and lack of sleep and rest.

and your in-depth knowledge is……?

Significant. Abnormal for non-LG staff.

BTW I don’t disagree with you about the using the PM’s salary as a ceiling for the pay of all those in local government – and have thought that for many years.
Great.

Just as I don’t agree with expenses being paid to Councillors or MPs just for turning up and signing on.

Job Seeker’s allowance? £300 per day in some places.
I think there should be fewer councillors, one councillor per smaller ward and being a councillor should be a paid part-time job.

What other system allows people to be paid for a job which doesn’t require them to be
* formally accountable for their detailed expenses in exactly the same way that staff have to be; or
* report back to the public in terms of what they have done and achieved – in a manner which can be independently verified?
There’s rather too many people claiming credit for things they had very little to do with – and then asking us to take that on trust.

English LG is overdue for reform to benefit its (usually paying) customers.

English election matters also need reform. Several targets are on my list. One minor which I shall pursue is the wording on multiple candidate voting papers (ballot forms) which is …..

Vote for no more than three candidates

I want that changed to You have 3 votes and expect the government to agree rather than fight in court. But one never knows what the unaccountable bureaucrats and the public parasites that work for them will do.

Incidentally it ain’t [quote] but

left-angle-bracket blockquote right-angle-bracket (no spaces)

angle brackets won’t appear on this blog, so substituting # for both left and right angle brackets, it looks like this #blockquote#

As the saying goes, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. People re-elected Lutfur because they like what he is doing. He should continue as he has been doing. He should not change anything.

Lutfur is like Marmite – you either love him or hate him. Obviously, more people love him which is why he has been re-elected with more votes than before. At the same time, there are a lot of haters who have been deriding Lutfur relentlessly. By way of example, this bloke (You could not make it up) made a series of racist and xenophobic comments when Lutfur published his +10 leaflet. Now, he has come up with a formula to improve Lutfur.

I would like to change the topic somewhat. There were some high profile Labour casualties in the local election.

1. Helal ‘dodgy dossier’ Abbas – good riddance. TH never forgave him for the way he stabbed Lutfur in the back in 2010. Hopefully, he will disappear quietly if he has any dignity left.

2. Abdal Ullah – a bit of a wheeler dealer, but a good lad. He has some good ideas and he is involved in a few initiatives. Hopefully, we will see him again re-surface in a different capacity.

3. Motin uz-Zaman – another councillor of Helal Abbas school of thought. He would be well advised to disappear with his tail firmly between his legs.

Another councillor who is not worth listing at number 4, but it is good to note that people rightly disposed of – Zenith Rahman. Her husband fanously appeared on Panorama. It’ll be interesting to see whether their son makes the cut.

TH Labour is a prime example of promoting nepotism. Ex Cllr Helal Rahman appears on Panorama so that both his wife and son can become Labour councillors (unless someone can argue that these lot are really competent individuals). In theory, a good bit of business by this family.

Good riddance .. These people are absolute waste of space. I remember speaking to some of them and all they were interested in was how to become the first Bengali MP and nothing else. Gorgeous George came along and changed the political landscape, in doing so shattered a lot dreams. Bhoy did I love the bloody nose he gave to labour.. Wiped the floor with Ona king.

Well well, TH voters know a good Rahman when they see one and it ain’t Zenith Rahman or Raju Rahman. TH voters rejected the mother and now they have disapproved of the son as well.

The deal that this family struck up with TH Labour party in exchange for ex Cllr Helal Rahman’s guest appearance on Panorama has not worked out. It has backfired. The mood in at least one Rahman household right now must be quite depressing.

Moral of the story: if you want to get ahead in TH politics, be in Lutfur’s good books.

There has been some talk of Labour re-admitting Lutfur. I agree with these sentiments. Labour party should get down on its knees and seek forgiveness for the way Lutfur was treated and ask him if he wants to come back to the fold.

Let’s be honest, Labour has more to lose if Lutfur is not re-admitted. There is general election to think about in 2015. Lutfur could easily take out Rushnara in Bethnal Green & Bow if he wants to. It’ll be like a walk in the park. Lutfur will go for a walk in Victoria Park and when he returns, Rushnara will be gone. Right now, Lutfur is the most potent force and the best brand in TH politics.

Lutfur will not need to stand himself to take out Rushnara. He is not interested in Westminster. He just needs to put up one of his candidates or give his backing to one of the other candidates against Rushnara. Why would he do that? Rushnara has been a constant nuisance and Lutfur could do with a sympathetic ally in his borough.

Is “Man on the Clapham Omnibus” actually Lutfur? Or is he some creep who has just landed on the planet and hasn’t seen what has been going on for the past 4 years? Lutfur is a Bengali who only works for Bengalis and says, “Ignore the infidels”. Witness how expenditure for people other than his coterie, was diluted and channeled back to his country-mens’ benefit.

Could it be that LR’s inability to engage in Q&As with Councillors be indicative of his woes with a highly educated woman, even though she is Bangladeshi born too? Other sources have indicated that he is incredibly shy and nervous when speaking in public. Should he even have considered such a high profile position where public speaking and conversation is key?

Dear AYM, thank you for your reply. I have no power to allow or forbid replies to my posts. It is the way this blog is designed. You get the option to reply to some posts, but not to others.

Anyway, you are going for form over substance, which is the fundamental flaw in your argument. Oxford v City is not a yardstick of anything. There are people who have not even been to uni who have gone onto achieve great things in life. Examples are many. What you need to focus on are achievements.

Lutfur has achieved far more before his involvement in politics and as a politician than Rushanara has or is ever likely to.

Rushanara should try to emulate Lutfur so that she can earn some respect from people. Also, she should keep a low profile lest she gets taken out at the next general election for being a ‘nuisance’.

Of course if Lutfur were elected to Parliament it would mean he’d actually have to speak in public (in the Parliamentary chamber) about his policies. The Parliament channel would be worth watching for that occasion.

Apparently more chaos at TH count. Still 5 wards to go.Dep returning officer for London has now arrived demanding why delays on euro count— Ted Jeory (@TedJeory) May 25, 2014

I'm told dep returning officer for London now concerned the 10pm deadline for euro polls will be missed due to LBTH chaos— Ted Jeory (@TedJeory) May 25, 2014

I can guarantee that as a result of this count that there will be staff who work for Tower Hamlets who will never do another count – not because they’ve done a bad job but because their goodwill to work extra hours has been so badly abused.

They were supposed to start at 2pm today but we were still standing outside after 3pm, they restarted ward counts first but Europe did not start until I think 5 or 6pm by then they were behind schedule. Island Gardens started just before 10pm, Bromley South started around 11.15pm. I saw one new council member being trained on what to do as the ballot sheets arrived in front of her. Same problems as before, not enough resources, inconsistent processes, not enough training, no Plan B, not enough space, indiscipline in the counting hall (by candidates and hangers on) and poor decision making when people were tired i.e. continuing with the count early Saturday morning rather the restarting later the same day. Council staff did a good job under the circumstances but they were getting tired.

The conduct of this Count is what happens when you don’t have a strong and very competent Chief Executive.

Martin Smith – The CEO and Returning Officer for the London Borough of Ealing (and ex CEO of LBTH after falling foul of Mayor Rahman) – declared the result for the election in Ealing (much bigger and a lot more votes and Councillors) on Friday 23rd May – BEFORE LBTH had even started the count for the local elections!

As it is LBTH is not only going to get the record for the longest wait for the completion of a count for a local government election, it is now also preventing the declaration of the European vote – and could mean that it holds up the UK contribution to European declarations.

Sadiq Khan talks to Dimbleby on the BBC about awaiting the results in London – and it looks as if they haven’t even started the count in Tower Hamlets!

Dimbleby is being VERY sarcastic about the inability of London to produce the result.

Tower Hamlets is going to get some incredibly bad press about this Euro Count.

I think I’m right in saying Bromley South is the only ward still to declare (other than Blackwall & Cubitt Town where they will have to rerun the election in June or July due to the death of Mr Rahman)

You know what it’s like when you’re sat twiddling your thumbs watching David Dimbleby get more and more irritated that he can’t discuss the London result!

People start to make jokes to pass the time – and then more jokes – and more jokes………..

There were some extremely funny ones – just stick “Tower Hamlets” into Twitter search and you can read them for yourself.

Of course a competent PR team would have highlighted the scope for an “own goal” for LBTH represented by poor performance in the Count for the Euro elections. It’s 100% reinforced the LBTH reputation for holding dodgy elections.

You can’t have an absolute deadline of 10pm to get your results sorted and then miss it – and have the whole of Europe waiting on your Count!

It’s also an absolute gift for the jokers. I predict this one is going to keep running as well – there will be cartoons, LGC will want to know what’s going on etc etc etc

The issue isn’t the the people doing the count – the issue is about management of this count.

Verification in normal councils (and in LBTH in the past) takes less than a couple of hours

The Count in normal councils (and in LBTH in the past) rarely takes more than 4-5 hours.

If you change the system without testing it and don’t staff up and train people for a larger turnout you are bound to get a problem. Everybody should have gone home after the Mayoral election declaration and then come in again on Saturday after a good night’s sleep and got all the locals done yesterday.

It’s not as if LBTH has the huge numbers of votes such as you get in other Councils!!

* the primary reason it’s now necessary to introduce extra checks on voting in LBTH is entirely due to the allegations of voter fraud in the past. No other Council needs the extra checks and balances needed in Tower Hamlets.

* The Mayor has lost two excellent, experienced, strong and extremely competent Chief Executives AND Returning Officers. Any CEO makes sure that all Count – which they are personally responsible for – runs extremely smoothly and meets any deadline required. If that takes a bigger budget and more staffing and training then that is what they make happen.

People like Martin Smith and Kevan Collins don’t walk away without a very good reason – and it’s got absolutely nothing to with their experience or competence or ability to achieve results. Rahman is also unable to appoint a suitable person to the post.

The top and bottom of it is that in every other Council the Returning Officer would be the Chief Executive, However in LBTH, there’s no heavyweight officer making things happen in LBTH. I repeat – this shambles would never happen in other boroughs – or in LBTH in the past.

I can’t help wondering what else doesn’t work at present if they can’t get a Count finished by deadlines.

Things which are not options
1) No Chief Executive
2) Chief Executives who are lightweights and inexperienced
3) Chief Executives who are Mayoral stooges

The latest Dimbleby comment

“They’ve been promising the London result in 20 minutes for the last three hours.”

Once upon a time, the RO used to be the Town Clerk who was usually a solicitor.

When local government became more political and more corrupt, the RO was the Head of Legal (being the chief solicitor). In some LAs the managing director/CE/head of paid service did the job. Now-a-days some LAs don’t care so any clown gets the job.

The RO’s role really does require a good organiser and competent thoughtful manager. Organising an election is not exactly rocket science. Simple logic and meticulous planning works wonderfully well.

Wonder how much TH pays their RO ? for the current farce and annually ?

First off there is no requirement for the Returning Officer to be a solicitor

Next solicitors haven’t typically become the Chief Executives for decades! That particular promotion was slowing down when I was starting my professional training with another London Borough.

The favoured profession which has typically moved up is the Director of Finance.

Next the post is entirely independent of the local authority – it’s ultimately responsible to the Electoral Commission not the local authority, although it’s always held by a senior local government officer

It’s almost always that the CEO is the Acting Returning Officer who in turn appoints somebody as his Deputy Returning Officer who is the person who actually runs the Count.

That person then appoints a team of people who are experienced at administration and getting things counted (it’s usually the senior managers within Finance and any other senior manager who is good at making things happen on time). One of those people will be a legal adviser for any eventualities which require legal advice. However most of the major issues are to do with security, logistics, systems, recruitment and training – and have very little to do with legal once the basic standards are well understood

The point about the CEO being the Acting Returning Officer is that you’ve got a very heavyweight person who is
1) not going to want egg on their face if anything goes wrong – because they’re the person who actually reads out the result.
2) can make sure things happen and is very capable of telling the politicians the way things will operate i.e. it’s not the politicians who determines how the election and count is conducted it’s the Acting Returning Officer – and there’s nothing the politicians can do about that.

I cannot believe that they carried on counting on Saturday morning because one political party wanted a result. The RO should have pulled the plug after the Mayoral Election – having had a contingency plan in place for just such an eventuality.

You might like to mug up on Responsibilities of Returning Officers
Standard Note: Section SN/PC/05302 28 January 2010

(4) Disagree in law that the post is entirely independent of the local authority it is not. The local authority appoints the returning officer.

(5) Disagree in law that it’s ultimately responsible to the Electoral Commission not the local authority. EleCom has a limited remit in election matters and mainly offers advice.

(6) Neutral on your personal observation it’s always held by a senior local government officer. That is because the local authority never usually appoints the mayor’s chauffeur or a Council Tax clerk to the role of Returning Officer.

(7) You are obviously mistaken as the Tower Hamlets experience disproves your surprising assertion That person then appoints a team of people who are experienced at administration and getting things counted (it’s usually the senior managers within Finance and any other senior manager who is good at making things happen on time). One of those people will be a legal adviser for any eventualities which require legal advice. However most of the major issues are to do with security, logistics, systems, recruitment and training – and have very little to do with legal once the basic standards are well understood

(8) Your comment You might like to mug up on Responsibilities of Returning Officers
Standard Note: Section SN/PC/05302 28 January 2010 suggests you can’t read because those notes are not intended for use except by MPs and, for the record, I found errors in a different one which the author, when I spoke to her, was reluctant to correct because the note was not intended for public use. Someone with your asserted knowledge of English local government merely proves my earlier point comprehensively well that many in local government lack a full understanding of the local government system. If you are genuinely knowledgeable about English local government then thousands of others in local government don’t have a clue.

Someone is obviously just having a laugh with this petition. It is littered with typos and grammatical errors with spurious claims everywhere. Whoever drafted it is having a laugh at everyone who is duped into signing it!

‘You could not make it up’ bloke wants me banned, because I have exposed his racist views. LMAO…! Call a spade a spade.

Mate, if you do not like being exposed, then do not make such xenophobic comments! It is really as simple as that. There is still hope for you. Apologise and admit that you made a mistake and we will forget about it. Admit that it is not appropriate to suggest that Muslims subjugate women, treat them as inferior and Muslims introduce ‘foreign’ ideas like FMG in this country in relation to an election leaflet!!!!

I have taken note of your comments that I am a ‘troll’ and I do not understand plain English.

I will buy Rosetta Stone to learn plain English. And I will copy and paste large chunks of various legislation with my own views on how they apply, write really long winded comments about local government and devise a formula to improve Lutfur so that I no longer appear to be a ‘troll’.

If Peter’s account is true – and there no reason to doubt Peter, he’s solid – why the are candidates handling ballots? Hasn’t anyone considered the possibility of manipulation, substitution, removal or intentional disfiguring of ballots? If candidates were handling ballots why are the results honoured? They are suspect for obvious reasons.

This isn’t an attack on any party of group of people either. This behaviour is just not on. Is it even legal?

I suggest somebody send a copy of this to Barry Quirk, the Chief Executive of Lewisham who was the Acting Returning Officer for London. I’m sure he’d like to express his view on this in all the right places……..

I was there on the first count day and the whole thing was quite unbelievable. The poor staff working there were exhaused, the system was very manual and it was probably made even harder by the introduction of the single UKIP candidates: by standing single candidates they split the party block votes so there were loads and loads of ‘mixed’ votes which are difficult to count (over 80% of my votes were mixed cross party votes or single votes for me only)

All these mixed votes had to be copied across to grids then totalled up then all the totals added together – very stressful and very manual and very hard to do when you are being pressured by all the candidates.

The place was a mess and the stress level was very high and mistakes are easily made, the workers were exhausted and easily bullied and harassed, not to mention the fundamental conflict of interest in the situation.

We could have benefited from a few UN Electoral Monitoring staff to support our fledgling Democracy!!!

We could have benefited from a few UN Electoral Monitoring staff to support our fledgling Democracy!!!

Its embarrassing to remember all the perpetual bollocks about England being a democratic country with free and fair elections then discovering, not only in wonderful TH but elsewhere too, the growing quality of imperfections ranging from postal voting abuses galore to ghosts on the electoral roll and the incompetence of election organisers ……

The thing I don’t understand is that in every London borough where UKIP stood, they typically only had one candidate in each ward.

Plus cross party voting is nothing new. In fact it’s very likely to happen at local elections where people often vote for a person rather than their politics if they think they are a good Councillor of have helped them.

Bottom line, I hear what you say and I’m not disputing this might seem like an explanation to you. However there’s absolutely nothing that you are describing on the “supply side” (i.e. votes on ballot papers) which is in any way different to what was faced by every other London Borough – who all managed to get their counts finished within normal timescales – which is a few hours.

Ditto the excuse I’ve heard offered by some that it was a big turnout. The fact is that a General Election very often produces a bigger turnout. The turnout is also much more like what election typically used to be. In other words, there’s nothing very exceptional about it – except maybe that those controlling the count were inexperienced in terms of tacking the amount of interference with the count and the use of systems for counting.

Sounds to me like some people from other London Boroughs who are very experienced at running elections and counts need to come in and take a look at what was going on – and what went wrong.

With respect to other people attending / obstructing the Count (over and above candidates, election agents, counting observers, accredited representatives) the following applies

Note my bold re key points – and my comment in italics

“The legislation provides that you can, at your discretion, permit other people to attend the proceedings if:
 you are satisfied that it will not impede the verification or efficient counting of votesi.e. the hall should have been cleared of all except the minimum people required by law as soon as it became clear that the count was being going too slowly and being held up
and
 in respect of the verification, you have consulted the election agents at the local government election or thought it impracticable to do so (although not required by law, you should also consult the election agents and any sub-agents at the European Parliamentary election when allowing people to attend the verification at your discretion) I wonder if all the relevant election agents were consulted and whether any objected?
 in respect of the count, you have consulted the election agents, including any sub-agents at the European Parliamentary election, or thought it impracticable to do so.” I wonder if all the relevant election agents were consulted and whether any objected?

This is typical Peter Golds. He speaks disparagingly of Lutfur by calling him “Great Leader” throughout. He then tries to paint one of THF candidates as a Muslim male chauvinist who apparently talks down to a female council employee.

It is all conjecture, assumptions and insinuations based on his deep rooted prejudices in order to carry out ‘character assassinations’ of people Golds has a problem with.

A Miah I witnessed the phone incident in question but did not hear the exchange of words but clearly the man was not happy at being asked to stop his phone call by the count official. Later I reminded another THF candidate about the no phone rule and he was very apologetic and immediately headed out of the hall to finish the call, which was the correct thing to do, it is what the other candidate should have done. We were all getting tired at this point but it was an example of the kind of distraction and lack of discipline which explains in part why the count took so long.

I’ve emboldened the two areas which I think a lot of people will want to study to work out the extent to which the team running the election did what it should do – and to what extent their work was compromised by actions by others.

The very last bit of the guidance relates to “A REVIEW”

The review

4.4 The scope of the review should cover all aspects of all the elections. Your project plan should be used as the starting point for the review, and each process that was planned for and carried out should be reviewed.

4.5 A key part of the review will be the consideration of the aims and objectives set out in your project plan and measuring your performance against these.

4.6 You should pay particular attention to reviewing:
• your project planning
• whether you were able to secure adequate resources
• working with the RRO
• the equipment and stationery used
• how contractors have been managed and whether they delivered work to
the required specification
• recruitment and training of staff
• the suitability of venues used
• the management of nominations at the local government elections

To be able to achieve the outcome set out in performance standard 1, you will need to evaluate planning for and delivery of previous polls and identify lessons learnt, updating plans as required. To demonstrate that the outcome can be delivered you will need to have in place planning documentation reflecting lessons learnt.

13
• the management of polling stations, the absent voting process, and the verification and count
• the processing and handling of queries
• any issues affecting the security/integrity of the election

4.7 As part of the review, you should seek feedback from appropriate stakeholders.

4.8 You should seek feedback from the following:
• your staff
• The RRO and their staff
• electors
• candidates, agents and political parties
• local organisations of disabled people, older people and minority ethnic
groups, and the council’s access officers

4.9 To obtain feedback from your staff, for example, you should consider inviting a number of them, including polling station staff, to a discussion in order to address all aspects of the polling station process, from training and briefing sessions through to dealing with difficult situations on polling day. You could also take into account any feedback provided in reports returned by Presiding Officers and polling station inspectors.

4.10 Once you have reviewed all aspects of the elections and sought feedback from appropriate stakeholders you should produce a lessons learnt document. The lessons learnt document should include an analysis of what practices were successful and where these could be used elsewhere, what you would do again or do differently, and key recommendations. The lessons learnt report should then be used to inform the project plan and risk register for future electoral events.

NOTE ALL ELECTORS SHOULD BE CANVASSED FOR THE THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE REVIEW OF THE ELECTION.

Sadly as I gain more knowledge of the voting system in England, the more wrong things I observe and, hence, wish to change.

Unlike many who proclaim things are wrong, I intend to advocate for changes in the laws by arguing before one or more judges unless the UK government wisely concurs.

This will be my last posting on Ted’s blog (I’m about to unsubscribe) because I must use my free time to prepare a challenge, collect evidence and witness statements, do the routine legal research at a university law library and on-line, then revise my pleadings (there is more than a single challenge) then pop-down to the RCJ to submit my applications.

Just had a foreigner complain to me about pencils issued in Polling Stations to mark ballot papers ….. but pencil marks can be removed. Biro and magic marker marks are much harder to change. See, its the little things that matter in the general pursuit of free and fair elections.:-)

My first major challenge is postal votes. I rate my chances at 80% plus although the government will fight.

My first minor challenge is the wording on multiple votes ballet forms. I rate my chances at 95% but expect the government to concur..

If you, or anyone else, has serious comments about the conduct of elections, you are welcome to contact me via http://u22.net/contact.

Essentially I want a better system and am prepared to take-on HMG to achieve it. I’m not giving media statements ‘cos I’m shy but I will publish on the net my pleadings.

It provides a statement of observations via reporters who reviewed arrangements outside polling stations in Tower Hamlets – testing out the assertions by the Returning Officer that systems had been put in place such that there would be no large crowds outside Polling Stations intimidating voters and impeding access to vote.

They even quote the Returning Officer as having stated that such crowds would clearly breach Electoral Commission Guidelines

I don’t think anybody’s particularly bothered as to who exactly was breaking the rules. The fact of the matter is that there simply shouldn’t be groups of people hanging around the entrance and there shouldn’t be people inside.

Some people won’t find the sort of groups in the video intimidating whereas others will feel most uncomfortable.

At my polling station I had a very civilised experience with Bangladeshi gentlemen – who were well spaced out away from the entrance – who went out of their way to be very polite and while keen to talk and hand me their leaflet were also very respectful.

At the same time I’ve read other people’s description of their own experience which was very different.

The fact that the police were not briefed as to what was and was not allowed rendered their presence an expensive frill – looks good and provides absolutely no support at all!

I’m gutted that Gloria didn’t get re-elected for Island Gardens ward. She engaged with the community more than any other councillor I’ve ever come across and she sorted two issues out for me with efficiency.

Comments are closed.

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.